Stewie Griffin has been freed.

[Llava]

Yes.  And given the slump of the music industry in the last few years (double digit % sales losses) I think its hard to argue that hasn't happened.

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=4206&t=innovation

Just showing that the argument that File Sharing != Lost Record Sales exists and is backed up by real evidence.

[Samwise]

Suing potential customers is not exactly a standard entry in the book of good CRM.

 

[HaemishM]

Triforcer, your arguments all seem to be based on the premise that copyright violation = profit loss.  Would you say that copyright violation is bad insofar as it results in lost profits for copyright holders?

Yes.  And given the slump of the music industry in the last few years (double digit % sales losses) I think its hard to argue that hasn't happened.

Bullshit. Those numbers are bullshit. The music industry has actually made MORE profit, but they have done so by shipping LESS PRODUCT. So there is less product at the retail end, meaning there are less sales, but the sales that are there are more profitable because they aren't shipping merchandise that never gets sold.

Now, as for your (and the RIAA's) idea that copyright violation = theft, you have to examine that argument in other lights.

Are these things theft?

Playing a CD for a friend, so the friend, who doesn't buy the CD, hears all the songs on it at original quality.
Buying a CD, not liking it, and selling or giving the CD to a friend.
Buying a CD at a used CD store, or selling a used CD to a used CD store.
Recording an entire CD off of the radio (some stations still play the entirety of a CD on special occasions) either in whole or song by song.

Are any of those things theft? They are copyright violations, because the end user, the one who ends up with the CD did not compensate the artist for the music. But these things are ALL legal. The only difference is that P2P networks allow people to trade music with complete strangers, in larger volumes than 1-to-1. Is the trick to the law that you can only allow 1 other person at a time to hear the music?

I'm not saying that file-sharing is totally legal, or even totally fair to the original artist. I am saying that I don't believe it's a theft worthy of the amount of vilification the RIAA is doing. What they don't seem to want to get is that the people who are downloading their artists' music ARE INTERESTED IN LISTENING TO THE ARTISTS' MUSIC. Why is this a bad thing? Because they might not buy the CD? How do they know they won't buy the CD? They are essentially abdicating an incredibly awesome marketing tool, just to protect a distribution model that is inefficient and outdated, simply because utilizing the new technology will cost them some short-term profits.

You want to kill piracy? Stop targeting the users who make no goddamn money off of it. Those people who share thousands of songs without charging anyone for them? THEY ARE MARKETING YOUR PRODUCT FOR GODDAMN FREE. You want to stop piracy, you hit the people who are making money off of your product without paying you. The bootleg CD sellers. The asshats requiring donation or paid registration for "illegal" music. So long as the downloading is free, it's a tool that doesn't hurt you. Unless of course, you demonize all those potential customers into hating your fucking guts.

Again, copyright laws are FUCKED. The DMCA is worse. This isn't about the ERobinHood bullshit some people will spout, it's about money that's there to be made, if only the idiots in charge of making it would unass their heads and get on with life.

[Pococurante]

There's a common misperception, amazingly even among artists, that RIAA is protecting the content creators' interests.  Just ain't so.  In fact the entire reason RAC was founded was because RIAA attempted to covertly strip them of most of their rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riaa#Work_.28Made.29_For_Hire_controversy
http://www.recordingartistscoalition.com/industrypractices.php#conclusion

[MaceVanHoffen]

Yes.  And given the slump of the music industry in the last few years (double digit % sales losses) I think its hard to argue that hasn't happened.

You're also assuming that the music industry is being honest about their losses, which is a little like assuming Enron had the best interests of energy consumers at heart.

[Bunk]

Or is 99 cents/song too much to pay?

Jumping in a little later here.

For me, yes, $.99 is far too much per song, and its why I don't use itunes. Is it that I can't afford $.99 per song? No. It's because where I live I can buy an entire cd (legit) for $13 - $16, or older cds for $8 - $12. That's all Canadian dollars. Essentially, they want me to pay the same for downloaded content as I do for the entire album.

Give me high quality downloads at say $.50 per song, with a good selection of current and older stuff, then I might be interested. Oh, and once I pay for a song, I expect to be able download it again for free if I need to.

[schild]

Oh, and once I pay for a song, I expect to be able download it again for free if I need to.

This is my biggest issue. Period. It's not the price, nor the quality. Simply the fact it doesn't bank my download. Fucking NCSoft let's you download all their clients if you paid for a key online. Apple sucks++.

[CmdrSlack]

Playing a CD for a friend, so the friend, who doesn't buy the CD, hears all the songs on it at original quality.
Buying a CD, not liking it, and selling or giving the CD to a friend.
Buying a CD at a used CD store, or selling a used CD to a used CD store.
Recording an entire CD off of the radio (some stations still play the entirety of a CD on special occasions) either in whole or song by song.

Are any of those things theft? They are copyright violations, because the end user, the one who ends up with the CD did not compensate the artist for the music. But these things are ALL legal. The only difference is that P2P networks allow people to trade music with complete strangers, in larger volumes than 1-to-1. Is the trick to the law that you can only allow 1 other person at a time to hear the music?

Playing a CD for a friend is not a copyright violation.
Selling the CD to a friend is not a copyright violation.  (Right of First Sale)
Used CD stores, not a copyright violation.  (Right of First Sale)
Recording an entire CD off the radio, maybe so, maybe no.  Odds are that while maybe not ok it is next to impossible to stop or track, aside from stations risking losing their license to play the music by breaking some rule the RIAA/ASCAP has for radio airplay that says, "No entire albums."

The law actually allows bars and clubs with a small enough space (figure less than 200 people max. limit) to have a jukebox and not have to pay royalties or licensing fees to the RIAA/ASCAP.

You did, however, hit the nail on the head....the RIAA's issue with P2P is the billyuns and billyuns /carlsagan of people that could be DLing the file.

Oh, that and the industry needs to be fixed.

[NowhereMan]

Personally I don't like Apple's downloads partly because of DRM bollocks you get stuck with, partly because you can't re download a song you've already bought and mostly because in the UK they charge £0.79 per song. That's about $1.50 and I don't see how the fuck they justify that mark-up for the UK compared to the US. Yes we have higher VAT but nowhere near high enough to justify a 50% mark-up. I somehow doubt that bandwith and running costs are going to be that much higher for the UK store so it looks to me like Apple's just charging the UK more because, y'know, they can. That pisses me off, I don't want to pay the same for digital tracks downloaded from Apple as I would for a physical CD, especially seeing as I could copy the CD as many times as I wanted and do pretty much what I liked with it.

[Strazos]

I don't want to pay the same for digital tracks downloaded from Apple as I would for a physical CD, especially seeing as I could copy the CD as many times as I wanted and do pretty much what I liked with it.

Hence, I still buy actual physical albums.

[Llava]

Plus they come with neat little booklets that sometimes have secrets messages in them!

[MrHat]

hahahha.

Edit: was funny.

[Nebu]

I think nearly everyone is missing the whole point on this issue.  I'll try to sum it up the best I can, but I'm certain that I'll leave out some detail... here goes:  Obtaining media without the permission of the creative force behind it is stealing.  The questions we should be asking ourselves is: a) why do people feel that obtaining music and video are an entitlement? and b) Why do people feel that they can justify the theft of copyrighted works? 

I think I've heard every form of justification on these forums in one thread or another.  Saying RIAA is wrong doesn't justify theft.  Saying "because I can" doesn't justify theft.  My favorite is the one above stating that by pirating music they actually increased their music purchases. I'm sorry, but the ends don't justify the means.  To me it's a very simple ethical situation.  If you want to have a proper copy of the media, buy it.  If you don't like the apparatus behind the distribution, boycott it.   If the artists want to give their work away, they will.  Some already do. 

I beg you all, please stop rationalizing that stealing is ok.

[HaemishM]

And please stop equating copyright infringment with STEALING. Because it isn't in all cases.

Copyright infringment which allows me (who didn't create the work) to make money off of the produce of the creator IS stealing. Copyright infringement where I hear a song or see a movie for free from a download? That's not stealing, that's fucking marketing. Is it "right?" I suppose to some people that depends on if I buy the album or see the movie or not.

As for the legal download places like ITunes or (MONKEYFUCKERS) Buymusic.com, I have one problem with all of them. I'm not actually buying anything from them, according to their EULA. I'm renting it. Fuck that. If I bought the CD, I'd have fair use copying privileges, but because I download it, I don't? FUCK YOU. If I'm only renting music, I should be able to re-download the shit for free if my harddrive crashes. But I can't, because it's all one time purchases.

Copyright law is fucked.

[CmdrSlack]

And please stop equating copyright infringment with STEALING. Because it isn't in all cases.

Copyright infringment which allows me (who didn't create the work) to make money off of the produce of the creator IS stealing. Copyright infringement where I hear a song or see a movie for free from a download? That's not stealing, that's fucking marketing. Is it "right?" I suppose to some people that depends on if I buy the album or see the movie or not.

As for the legal download places like ITunes or (MONKEYFUCKERS) Buymusic.com, I have one problem with all of them. I'm not actually buying anything from them, according to their EULA. I'm renting it. Fuck that. If I bought the CD, I'd have fair use copying privileges, but because I download it, I don't? FUCK YOU. If I'm only renting music, I should be able to re-download the shit for free if my harddrive crashes. But I can't, because it's all one time purchases.

Copyright law is fucked.

The issue you have with iTunes et. al. is moreso licensing law being fucked, not copyright.  It's just as fucked for internet radio, where the licensing doesn't let internet radio stations do shit like play requests, play the same band twice in a row, etc.  The industry is the one that's fucked, really.  For some reason it sees (or pretends to see) the copyability of music as the great white satan or somesuch.

[Nebu]

And please stop equating copyright infringment with STEALING. Because it isn't in all cases.

I agree (that's why the disclaimer that I'm sure I was omitting some detail).  Since media isn't as tangible as something like an apple, there is a lot more gray area in what is stealing and what isn't.  I do feel that people obtain music without the consent of the artist and spend an inordinate amount of energy trying to justify their actions.  To me this is partly a societal and/or ethical problem as the root cause.  Taking something without paying for it is stealing... isn't that the crux of this whole issue?  Managers/Distributors/Artists want their cash and the masses find ways to obtain what they want without paying.  I'm not condoning what the RIAA is doing, but they are somewhat justified in wanting to get more for their product than they currently are.  Hell, if you've ever worked in retail you realize that markup is partially to cover the costs of both shoplifting and security.  It seems to me that people pirating copyrighted materials could save everyone a lot of money by not doing it anymore (assuming the money grubbing industry moguls would adjust their prices for decreased theft).  I do agree that the RIAA and the industry are going about their solution all wrong, but that wsn't the point of this post.  

Copyright law is fucked.

I agree again.  When you have to get into the game of covering loopholes, the written vernacular can become so convoluted that it is almost more readily manipulated.  My contention is that if the mainstream had some ethics and/or conscience about this we'd have fewer invasive issues.

[Samwise]

It seems to me that people pirating copyrighted materials could save everyone a lot of money by not doing it anymore (assuming the money grubbing industry moguls would adjust their prices for decreased theft).

Please to explain how not downloading copyrighted material in and of itself saves anyone any money.  If every single pirate stopped downloading music this very second, and in no other way changed their behavior, how would anything be any different from the industry's point of view?

[HaemishM]

And please stop equating copyright infringment with STEALING. Because it isn't in all cases.

I agree (that's why the disclaimer that I'm sure I was omitting some detail).  Since media isn't as tangible as something like an apple, there is a lot more gray area in what is stealing and what isn't.  I do feel that people obtain music without the consent of the artist and spend an inordinate amount of energy trying to justify their actions.  To me this is partly a societal and/or ethical problem as the root cause.  Taking something without paying for it is stealing... isn't that the crux of this whole issue?  Managers/Distributors/Artists want their cash and the masses find ways to obtain what they want without paying.

Actually, a lot of the creative process that involves finding an audience just wants your voice (as the creator) to be heard. Money is just supposed to be there to allow your voice to be heard without having to work a goddamn day job you hate. Beyond that, it's all greed and luxury.

 I'm not condoning what the RIAA is doing, but they are somewhat justified in wanting to get more for their product than they currently are.  Hell, if you've ever worked in retail you realize that markup is partially to cover the costs of both shoplifting and security.  It seems to me that people pirating copyrighted materials could save everyone a lot of money by not doing it anymore (assuming the money grubbing industry moguls would adjust their prices for decreased theft).

Not going to happen, and you know it. I remember the days when CD's were first introduced, and many of the industry proponents were justifying the cost of CD's, which at the time was double the price of the same album on cassette tapes. I remember the justification being that CD manufacture was expensive, and that the prices would go down once the manufacturing process was cheaper. Prices never went down, they went up, while the cost of manufacture is TRIVIAL these days. Which either means the industry has been gouging us, or the distribution model is fucked, or both.

Businesses do not lower consumer prices unless they have no other choice. Businesses that are able to sell their product without many of the same costs associated (like say not having to ship a physical product to the store) and yet still charge the same amount for the product? Fuck them.

[Nebu]

Please to explain how not downloading copyrighted material in and of itself saves anyone any money.  If every single pirate stopped downloading music this very second, and in no other way changed their behavior, how would anything be any different from the industry's point of view?

I'm going to talk out my ass from a purely academic business model for a moment, so bear with me.  Most of these ideas came out of lunches with my colleagues in the business school.  Being an audio geek, I was quite interested in their take on the business side of the matter.

Marketing and pricing decisions are often based on perceived variables.  One of those variables would be lost sales due to a perceived product leak through theft.  This is a variable every distributor has to account for... product loss.  If the music industry were to follow business practices of nearly every other product out there, they would have a decreased cost per unit if they had to account for less loss due to product theft.  i.e. One possible scenario that the music industry could assume is that out of x fewer thefts they would see a correlative increase of y in sales or that some of the people no longer pirating the music is now buying it.   Of course this would take some time to flesh out. Now, it is of course possible and even expected that less pirating would result in no pricing change in the short term.  A long term trend would have to be established before I think anyone would see a tangible benefit.  

One of the things I learned while working retail is that deadbeats make the rest of us suffer when it comes to price.  Shoplifters drive up the retail prices of goods.  To a lesser degree, media pirates could be perceived to have a similar effect on the cost of finished media.  At least that's how I understand it.

EDIT: What Haemish says above is also true though.  Unless busines has some real pressure to change pricing, they won't. 

[Nebu]

Not going to happen, and you know it. I remember the days when CD's were first introduced, and many of the industry proponents were justifying the cost of CD's, which at the time was double the price of the same album on cassette tapes. I remember the justification being that CD manufacture was expensive, and that the prices would go down once the manufacturing process was cheaper. Prices never went down, they went up, while the cost of manufacture is TRIVIAL these days. Which either means the industry has been gouging us, or the distribution model is fucked, or both.

Businesses do not lower consumer prices unless they have no other choice. Businesses that are able to sell their product without many of the same costs associated (like say not having to ship a physical product to the store) and yet still charge the same amount for the product? Fuck them.

Not to split hairs, but prices have gone down.  When I started buying cd's in 1984 there were fewer than 50 choices and the disks cost somewhere between $20 and $40.  Mass availability coupled to a drastic reduction in the cost of cd players has dropped cd prices since that time.  Now that more people can afford a cd player, music distributors can sell cd's cheaper knowing they will reach a larger audience. 

Now... are prices on cd's still higher than they should be?  Yes.  I'll agree with that.  I blame the managers and the distributors far more than the artists.  Just like most systems in this country, the costs associated come with the fat in the middle rather than the source.

Edit: My apologies for the double post.

[Dren]

Obtaining media without the permission of the creative force behind it is stealing. 

For most cases that is true.  Most of the arguments here and elsewhere is that the creative forces SHOULD give permission for free downloads or at least samples that lead to low cost downloads of the actual songs.  Cut out all the other costs that aren't needed in that business model and the songs would be really cheap and the performers would win.  Who loses?  The middlemen.

I agree.  As the current system works, downloading the content without paying is stealing because the people that made the content say so.  My issue is that they are just being ignorant and stupid.

Put me in the same camp that buys music I have heard through ripped CD's and I like to buy by the song, not by the album.  P2P (before the latest crack down) had me eventually buying way more music than I ever did.  After the crack down?  None.  I walked away from the whole business and get fed the same 5 songs over and over on the radio now.  And I hate it.

This whole thing screams "Don't buy music from us ever!!"  They make something that could be so easy and inexpensive a nightmare in my opinion.

[Samwise]

All right, so how does this:

One possible scenario that the music industry could assume is that out of x fewer thefts they would see a correlative increase of y in sales or that some of the people no longer pirating the music is now buying it.

mesh with this:

My favorite is the one above stating that by pirating music they actually increased their music purchases. I'm sorry, but the ends don't justify the means.

?

Are sales the thing that matters, or aren't they?  Is your argument based on hard economics or some abstract moral principle involving which nodes on a network electronic packets may and may not be routed to?

[HaemishM]

Not going to happen, and you know it. I remember the days when CD's were first introduced, and many of the industry proponents were justifying the cost of CD's, which at the time was double the price of the same album on cassette tapes. I remember the justification being that CD manufacture was expensive, and that the prices would go down once the manufacturing process was cheaper. Prices never went down, they went up, while the cost of manufacture is TRIVIAL these days. Which either means the industry has been gouging us, or the distribution model is fucked, or both.

Businesses do not lower consumer prices unless they have no other choice. Businesses that are able to sell their product without many of the same costs associated (like say not having to ship a physical product to the store) and yet still charge the same amount for the product? Fuck them.

Not to split hairs, but prices have gone down.  When I started buying cd's in 1984 there were fewer than 50 choices and the disks cost somewhere between $20 and $40.  Mass availability coupled to a drastic reduction in the cost of cd players has dropped cd prices since that time.  Now that more people can afford a cd player, music distributors can sell cd's cheaper knowing they will reach a larger audience. 

The only CD's I ever see for more than $20 are those stupid gold master types or box set/double albums. Normal, everyday CD's? In the late 80's, I would see them for about $16 for a new CD. Now? $18, unless you go to some of the mass discount places like Best Buy.

[Nebu]

All right, so how does this:

One possible scenario that the music industry could assume is that out of x fewer thefts they would see a correlative increase of y in sales or that some of the people no longer pirating the music is now buying it.

mesh with this:

My favorite is the one above stating that by pirating music they actually increased their music purchases. I'm sorry, but the ends don't justify the means.

?

Are sales the thing that matters, or aren't they?  Is your argument based on hard economics or some abstract moral principle involving which nodes on a network electronic packets may and may not be routed to?

In the first quote the two are inversely related, in the other poster's quote they were directly related.

Hope that helps.

Haemish:  CD players were in their infancy in the late 70's and early 80's.  I had one of the very first phase linear top loaders and recall it being almost prohibitively expensive for the time.  There was a huge change in cd prices and marketing between 1984 and 1988.  If you're recalling prices in the late 1980's as being similar to today's you would be correct.  Adjusted for inflation, the cd's in 1988 while at the same price are still pretty significantly more expensive, but that's another discussion. 

[Samwise]

All right, so how does this:

One possible scenario that the music industry could assume is that out of x fewer thefts they would see a correlative increase of y in sales or that some of the people no longer pirating the music is now buying it.

mesh with this:

My favorite is the one above stating that by pirating music they actually increased their music purchases. I'm sorry, but the ends don't justify the means.

?

Are sales the thing that matters, or aren't they?  Is your argument based on hard economics or some abstract moral principle involving which nodes on a network electronic packets may and may not be routed to?

In the first quote the two are inversely related, in the other poster's quote they were directly related.

Hope that helps.

So you take issue with the premise that piracy boosts sales in some cases, not the logic that if it does boost sales, it's not bad.  Right?

[Roac]

The way I see it, the basic intent of copyright law is to make sure the owner of the copyright gets their fair share of money.  It is my belief that downloading a couple of songs or a movie leak over the Intarweb, in and of itself, does not interfere with that.

When you do it, it doesn't.  When you and a few ten million of your friends do, it's a serious issue.

[Nebu]

So you take issue with the premise that piracy boosts sales in some cases, not the logic that if it does boost sales, it's not bad.  Right?

To be completely honest, what I think doesn't matter.  It's what the market analysists in the industry think that does.  I'm saying that the people I've chatted with feel that piracy has a more destructive effect on the market than it works to promotes sales.  My common sense logic: if piracy increased sales, they'd be less apt to try to stop it.  Wouldn't they?

My personal bias is that I take offense to people that steal copyrighted materials without permission and then try to justify themselves for doing it.  If you're stealing media, just admit that your stealing it and quit trying to make excuses.  Saying it's ok to steal copyrighted materials because the price is too high or the system is screwed just doesn't cut it.

[Samwise]

So you take issue with the premise that piracy boosts sales in some cases, not the logic that if it does boost sales, it's not bad.  Right?

To be completely honest, what I think doesn't matter.  It's what the market analysists in the industry think that does.  I'm saying that the people I've chatted with feel that piracy has a more destructive effect on the market than it works to promotes sales.  My common sense logic: if piracy increased sales, they'd be less apt to try to stop it.  Wouldn't they?

Your equation fails to account for two things:

1) Stupidity.
2) Ulterior motives.

I haven't made up my mind which of these it is.  Either the RIAA is incredibly stupid and doesn't realize that they're fucking their own customers, or they're incredibly evil and this is part of some master plan to fuck copyright laws even further, with the DMCA as the first step towards some even more hideous apparatus.

The way I see it, the basic intent of copyright law is to make sure the owner of the copyright gets their fair share of money. It is my belief that downloading a couple of songs or a movie leak over the Intarweb, in and of itself, does not interfere with that.

When you do it, it doesn't. When you and a few ten million of your friends do, it's a serious issue.

No matter how many times you multiply ten million by zero, it's still zero.  And my position is that if I download something and then pay for a copy of it, zero money has been lost as a consequence of the download.  If I download something and then pay for a copy of it as a result, money has been GAINED as a consequence of that download.  The only instance in which anyone has a logical or ethical basis for bitching about piracy is if I download something and then don't pay for a copy of it as a result.  And that has never been the case.

Hence my bias that the entire concept of file sharing equalling theft is basically fucked.

[Yegolev]

2) Ulterior motives.

I haven't made up my mind which of these it is.  Either the RIAA is incredibly stupid and doesn't realize that they're fucking their own customers, or they're incredibly evil and this is part of some master plan to fuck copyright laws even further, with the DMCA as the first step towards some even more hideous apparatus.

I am partial to the hideous apparatus idea.

[Roac]

And my position is that if I download something and then pay for a copy of it, zero money has been lost as a consequence of the download.

You're right, and isn't really piracy in that respect.  It is legal anyhow, to copy files that you 'own' through other means, such as a paid d/l or a CD.  The concern is the amount of people who download music and DON'T pay for it.  I'm glad you do.  A lot of people do not.

If I download something and then pay for a copy of it as a result, money has been GAINED as a consequence of that download.

It isn't uncommon to have access to listen to songs on the radio, on the group/label/amazon website, etc for the purposes of demo'ing a song.  The difference is that those methods of previewing the product are legal - yours is not.  I'm glad that you paint yourself as the hero for the music industry, but there are a lot of people who don't give a whit about them, and don't want to give them money.  RIAA isn't concerned so much about you.

[Samwise]

The thing is, I am not by any means unique.  There is a huge market out there of people like myself who are willing to part with vast sums of money in exchange for music, as long as they get a chance to preview it first and make sure it isn't ass.  And rather than courting that market in an attempt to get some of that phat cash, the RIAA is demonizing it and slapping it with lawsuits.  REAL FUCKING SMART, ASSHOLES.  That's all I'm saying.

[Strazos]

Agreed...I'm always tenative to pick up a new album if I don't have previous experience with the creator(s).

If I had an easier way to demo music, I would therefore BUY more music.

But as it stands, there are only 4 or 5 people/bands whose albums I will buy on blind faith. As such, I have a pretty small CD collection.

[Nebu]

Your equation fails to account for two things:

1) Stupidity.
2) Ulterior motives.

I haven't made up my mind which of these it is.  Either the RIAA is incredibly stupid and doesn't realize that they're fucking their own customers, or they're incredibly evil and this is part of some master plan to fuck copyright laws even further, with the DMCA as the first step towards some even more hideous apparatus.

First, it's not my equation.  It's some simple business priniples applied to a specific business.  Second, the answer is neither of the points you provide.  Business is about the exchange of one thing for another.  The music industry wants to maximize profits for their wares and they feel that online piracy threatens this.  They are using the legal system to try to make their point. We'll have to see what decisions get handed down before we can start spewing accusations.

No matter how many times you multiply ten million by zero, it's still zero.  And my position is that if I download something and then pay for a copy of it, zero money has been lost as a consequence of the download.  If I download something and then pay for a copy of it as a result, money has been GAINED as a consequence of that download.  The only instance in which anyone has a logical or ethical basis for bitching about piracy is if I download something and then don't pay for a copy of it as a result.  And that has never been the case.

Hence my bias that the entire concept of file sharing equalling theft is basically fucked.

I don't know how to say this nicely, but you're wrong.  File sharing is the making and distribution of copies of an initial copyrighted piece of material that violate the terms of said copyright.  Every instance where a person accepts an illegal copy instead of purchasing the original copyrighted version, the artists and the apparatus lose money.  I'm not sure why this doesn't make sense.  Now there are instances where having access to the music may encourage people to purchase a copyrighted version, but the ends do not justify the means.  The artist and or record company own the rights to the media and to its distribution.  Here's the thrust of the argument: If the artist wishes to distribute their media for free, that should be their choice to do so.  At this moment, media is being distributed without the consent of the artist and that is where your argument breaks down.  People are distributing materials that violate the copyright of the holder... in my mind this is stealing, but opinions vary.

[Llava]

The thing is, I am not by any means unique.  There is a huge market out there of people like myself who are willing to part with vast sums of money in exchange for music, as long as they get a chance to preview it first and make sure it isn't ass.  And rather than courting that market in an attempt to get some of that phat cash, the RIAA is demonizing it and slapping it with lawsuits.  REAL FUCKING SMART, ASSHOLES.  That's all I'm saying.

Me too.

Just to support your point.

Though I very rarely download entire CDs that I don't already own, I do frequently download released singles and burn them onto a CD, so I can hear them whenever I want and decide if I really want the album.  Mars Volta got money from me because of this.  So have a lot of other bands.  CDs that I would buy anyways are the only ones who stand to lose from this investigation (like the latest Nine Inch Nails CD... I wouldn't have bought that if I listened to it ahead of time), but I'm usually too psyched up to buy the album to do that research.  I already have my money ready to throw at them.

I know the music industry thinks that they're losing sales if I hear a song on the radio, download it, listen to it a few more times, decide I don't like it and trash it, but they're not.  I wouldn't have bought the album anyway.  I don't experiment buying CDs anymore.  I used to, when I could regularly find CDs for $12.  But now that everything is about $20 with tax, I'm not so eager to throw away my money anymore.  The downloading just speeds up the process, which the industry seems to prefer anyways, fond as it is of giant release weeks and such.

Every instance where a person accepts an illegal copy instead of purchasing the original copyrighted version, the artists and the apparatus lose money.  I'm not sure why this doesn't make sense.

It does make sense, but you're making the erroneous assumption that all (or, by my guess, even most) people "accepting illegal copies" are doing so as an alternative to purchasing the material.  For me, the alternative is to just not have the material.  And because it costs them nothing for me to own the material (not like in a convenience store- a candy bar I take for free costs them money because it cannot be infinitely duplicated for free) they're not losing anything if I have no interest in the product other than in a way that doesn't involve me spending money.

Basically, if I wasn't going to buy it anyway and the download confirmed that, you've lost no money.  If I WAS going to buy it, I probably already did.  If I wasn't going to buy it and the download changed my mind, you've gained money.

If I were one in a million, the record industry would have a real case here.  As it is, the research shows that I'm not.  The research shows that the majority of people downloading do so in the same way.  Based on the research, it seems that the balance is about even in money lost/money gained because of downloading (the above posted link in which a Harvard study concluded that there was no link between lost record sales and music downloads).

Though I should point out that I do feel that the attitude of "Why buy it when I can just download it?" is stealing, and does harm the creative media fields, even if the result is the same.  Kant would be proud.

[Samwise]

Every instance where a person accepts an illegal copy instead of purchasing the original copyrighted version, the artists and the apparatus lose money.

But that has no bearing whatsoever on what we're discussing, because we're discussing instances in which the purchase is made.  Do you agree?